BOOK REVIEW
Evolution of a Controversy
George Webb
The Evolution-Creation Struggle. Michael Ruse. viii + 327
pp. Harvard University Press, 2005. $25.95.
The summer of 2005, which marked the 80th anniversary of the Scopes
trial, provided various reminders of the continuing controversy
surrounding the teaching of evolution in the public schools of the
United States. The annual reenactment of the trial in its hometown
of Dayton, Tennessee, attracted even greater attention than usual,
in large part because of numerous efforts throughout the nation to
have "intelligent design" taught alongside the theory of
evolution in science classes in the public schools. This campaign
appeared to gain important support in August when President George
W. Bush and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist announced that they
favored the approach. Fortunately, the summer also witnessed the
arrival on bookstore shelves of The Evolution-Creation
Struggle, a carefully researched and cogently argued
examination of this long-standing controversy by noted philosopher
of science Michael Ruse. An observer of and participant in the
debate on the topic for the past three decades, Ruse offers his
readers historical and philosophical insight into the issues and
ideas involved.
Deftly analyzing the last few centuries of Western intellectual
history, Ruse convincingly argues that both "sides" in the
debate may best be understood as responses to an underlying crisis
of faith. This crisis developed gradually, reaching its zenith in
the Enlightenment, as the verities associated with traditional
religion came under attack. Responses tended to take one of two
diverging paths: Many people, rejecting intellectual currents that
they viewed as having removed God from the processes of nature,
embraced an emotional evangelicalism. Others took a more
reason-based approach, accepting the growing importance of science
in modern thought and attempting to create an appropriate faith.
This road led ultimately to deism and to a belief in progress, not
just in the natural world but also in human culture and society.
For people on either path, the question was what the future was
going to be like and what their current obligations were. The
evangelicals were "premillennialists"—they believed
that Jesus was going to return before the millennium (the
thousand-year period before Judgment Day in the Book of Revelations)
and that people should prepare for his coming by making themselves
morally pure. Individual salvation and the return of Christ would be
the precursors to a better world. (Ruse cites the current popularity
of the Left Behind books as an excellent example of this
particular religious outlook.) The believers in progress were
postmillennialists; because they didn't think Jesus would return
until after the millennium, they thought that people should try now
to perfect human society. This embrace of cultural progress, in
Ruse's view, prepared the ground for the development of evolutionary
ideas. But it was Darwin's ability to craft a "science" of
evolution that provided sympathetic individuals with "a reason
to believe" in the new theory.
Ruse continues his analysis by tracing the development of
evolutionism, a phenomenon distinct from evolution
or evolutionary theory. Evolutionism was a cultural
concept, a philosophy of progress that could be embraced with few
qualms by many religious thinkers, particularly postmillennial
Christians. As time went on, in fact, many progressive theologians
appear to have downplayed the significance of a literal Second
Coming and to have emphasized instead social and cultural reform as
part of the church's mission. As Ruse points out, many contemporary
evolutionists remain committed to this postmillennial religious
view, seeing no necessary conflict between their scientific and
religious thoughts and activities.
Premillennial Christians, of course, have had a different response
to evolution. Progress has no place in their religious outlook, and
science is essentially irrelevant. In the early 20th century, this
outlook provided the foundation for fundamentalism and its most
famous artifact, the Scopes trial of 1925. Fundamentalism and the
premillennial perspective continued in various forms throughout the
rest of the century and remain central to creationist and
intelligent-design efforts.
Having enlightened his readers concerning the religious aspects of
this continuing controversy, Ruse provides a concise survey of the
key ideas in evolutionary theory during the 20th century, showing
how the Modern Synthesis greatly enhanced the explanatory power of
Darwin's ideas. He notes that theoretical developments over the past
50 years or so (which he summarizes) appear to have led to a more
diverse "religious" response among evolutionary
scientists, ranging from efforts to separate the two spheres of
thought to the militant atheism embraced by Richard Dawkins. Ruse
has previously examined the relation between science and faith in
his 2001 book Can a Darwinian Be a Christian?, but placing
this topic in the context of current discontents is particularly
valuable. He makes a strong case that many Darwinian evolutionists
do indeed employ their ideas as something of a secular religion, but
do so in the context of promoting progress in the manner of the
postmillennialism of earlier days.
Ruse carefully examines the creationist and intelligent-design
movements, showing clearly how the growth of premillennial religious
activity following World War II led to the resurrection of flood
geology and young-Earth creationism. He next looks at the
development of the intelligent-design version of antievolutionism,
taking the arguments seriously but pointing out the underlying
religious structure of the major ideas. He also provides an
excellent analysis of the scientific weaknesses of intelligent
design, stressing that it fails to provide an agenda for future
research. Equally important, intelligent-design research yields no
results and fails to make predictions that might lead to future
discoveries. Its greatest shortcoming of all, however, is its
reliance on outside intervention (or "miracles") as the
ultimate foundation of intelligent-design explanations. Ruse is very
uncomfortable with such concepts, as they are nothing less than
"science stoppers" that make it impossible for the study
of the natural world to go forward.
Although Ruse acknowledges that evolutionists offer the most
convincing explanation of life's origin and development, he notes
that Darwinian evolution does, indeed, "impinge" on
religious thinking. Scientists must come to terms with this most
important aspect of the clash and take appropriate steps to
counterbalance the strength that antievolutionists currently enjoy
in the United States. He suggests that scientists should work more
diligently with Christian evolutionists to counter creationist
activity, criticizing those such as Dawkins who show open contempt
for religion and its practitioners. In the final analysis, Ruse
calls on his evolutionist colleagues to understand both their own
assumptions and those of their opponents. This call is "not a
plea for weak-kneed compromise," he says, "but a more
informed and self-aware approach to the issues. First understanding,
and then some strategic moves." Without such understanding, the
controversy between the creationist and evolutionist outlooks will
remain little more than an exercise in name-calling. Given the
political and public support for antievolutionist ideas, perhaps we
should give Ruse's proposal serious thought.